Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.


Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe

Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...

New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts


Monckton Myth #8: Rising sea levels

Posted on 27 January 2011 by Rob Painting

Regular readers will know the drill by now, this is one of a series of posts responding to a number of claims recently put forth by British climate skeptic Chris Monckton, in response to an article in the Australian by Mike Steketee. So let's begin.


Monckton - "In fact, the rate of increase in sea level has not changed since satellites first began measuring it reliably in 1993"

Chris Monckton is correct that the rate of sea level rise has not accelerated throughout the 17 year period of satellite altimetry, however it is still rising in a linear fashion at around 3mm per year. His suggestion that the tide gauge data is not reliable isn't borne out by simple fact checking however, the tide guages are still in use and their data overlap the period of satellite observation. Both satellites and tide guages are in broad general agreement.

Figure 1. - Global mean sea level since 1870. Courtesy of CMAR CSIRO 


Monckton - "It (satellite altimetry data) is a dizzying 1 ft/century – not vastly greater than the 8 inches/century that had previously been inferred from tide-gauges."

The insinuation here is that the rate of sea level rise has not changed appreciably over the timespan of record keeping. This is not correct. Church & White 2006 found that the rate of sea level rise accelerated throughout the 20th century. Merrifield 2009 also found a 20th century acceleration and another study (Jevrejeva 2008) show that the acceleration began as far back as the 18th century.



Figure 2. Sea level reconstruction since 1700 from Jevrejeva 2008.  Shadow represents the errors of the reconstruction & fitted curve is a second order polynomial fit.


Monckton - "A recent paper has confirmed what marine biologists had long suspected: coral atolls simply grow to meet the light as the sea rises, and some of them have even gained land mass recently according to a just-published scientific paper."

This reference is to Webb & Kench 2010, in which the authors examined aerial photos and satellite images of 27 coral atoll islands in the South Pacific taken decades apart. Despite rising sea level rates in the region of 2 mm per year, only 14% of islands decreased in land area. Measurements of height changes were not made.

How this negates current concern about sea level is rather a mystery; sea level rates until now have been relatively small but are expected to increase as global temperatures rise and ice melt accelerates. Rates projected for this century range from 8 - 18mm per year (Grinstead 2008, Vermeer & Rahmstorf 2009) and coral reefs are actually in very poor shape, particularly from warm-water induced mass coral bleaching and ocean acidification. Globally coral are in decline, with about 40% of coral cover being lost in the last 3-4 decades, and recent studies have shown that coral growth rates on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia (De'ath 2009), South East Asia (Tanzil 2009) and the Caribbean (Bak 2009) have dropped in the last couple of decades. That coral can cope with the with the projected rate of sea level rise when they are in crisis (Veron 2009) and at elevated risk of extinction (Carpenter 2008) is somewhat far-fetched.


Monckton - "Professor Niklas Mörner, who has been studying sea level for a third of a century, says it is physically impossible for sea level to rise at much above its present rate, and he expects 4-8 inches of sea level rise this century, if anything rather below the rate of increase in the last century."

Mörner is a retired professor from the University of Stockholm. who has recently criticized current scientific work on sea level. Work by Vermeer and Rahmstorf contradict Mörners' claim. Examining sea level and it's relationship with global temperature, they develop a method for estimating sea level which accurately simulates observed sea level rise. When this method is applied to warming anticipated this century, an acceleration of sea level is projected. 


Figure 3. -  From Verrmer & Rahmstorf 2009. Sea-level rise from 1990 to 2100, based on IPCC temperature projections for three different emission scenarios


Monckton - "In the 11,400 years since the end of the last Ice Age, sea level has risen at an average of 4 feet/century, though it is now rising much more slowly because very nearly all of the land-based ice that is at low enough latitudes and altitudes to melt has long since gone."

The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have more than enough ice to cause a jump in sea level rates. The question is how quickly that ice might melt. We can look at the last interglacial, the Eemian for insight, because Earth's land, plants, ice and circulation were similar to today. 

At the height of the last interglacial (about 115,000 -130,000 years ago), global temperatures were 1-2 degrees C warmer than now, resulting in less global ice than today at its peak because of different Earth orbital cycles. Sea level rises at times during this period exceeded 36mm per year (Blanchon 2009 ) . Kopp 2009 estimate that global sea levels rose 6 to 9 meters higher than now, and the authors commented:

"The results from the LIG (Last Interglacial) suggest that, given a sufficient forcing, the present ice sheets could sustain a rate of GSL (global sea level)  rise of about 56–92 cm (5.6-9.2 mm per year) per century for several centuries, with these rates potentially spiking to higher values for shorter periods."

Rising sea levels are a legitimate concern based on the best scientific evidence available; idle speculation by Chris Monckton is not a reasonable basis to suggest otherwise.

0 0

Printable Version  |  Link to this page


Prev  1  2  

Comments 51 to 58 out of 58:

  1. Dikran, puncturing a "skeptic" fallacy here and there can't hurt. I disagree with both yourself and KR. Let's leave it at that.
    0 0
  2. Anthony G. Warming #42: "You would not spread any such irrelevant information concerning those you trust." This makes my head hurt. Either you think such information is irrelevant in which case you would, indeed, have no reason to spread it or you think the information is relevant in which case you wouldn't trust them.
    0 0
  3. Stefan's surname is spelled Rahmstorf.
    0 0
  4. SEA LEVEL ACCELERATION Monckton - "In the 11,400 years since the end of the last Ice Age, sea level has risen at an average of 4 feet/century, though it is now rising much more slowly because very nearly all of the land-based ice that is at low enough latitudes and altitudes to melt has long since gone." Monckton - "It (satellite altimetry data) is a dizzying 1 ft/century – not vastly greater than the 8 inches/century that had previously been inferred from tide-gauges." ~ ~ ~ ~ Sounds to me like the man is saying sea levels have been rising by 8 inches per century, (coming down from 48" per). That this rate of sea level rise ended about 6,7 thousand years ago and that sea levels have remain remarkably stable since then. . . seems not an unimportant distinction to make clear to folks and lurkers.
    0 0
  5. CC @ 54 - I'm not saying your point isn't valid, but trying to address every error or diversion simply dilutes the message. Thanks for highlighting this though, it's worthy of its own rebuttal.
    0 0
  6. Cynicus @40 He said "Scleractinia"- the order of modern hard corals. Regardless, scleractinians probably DID evolve from actinians, which are the sea anemones, not sponges. But yes, the Permian was the only time when all known corals went extinct. However, there are other periods where corals nearly went extinct. The most notable of these events was from the Cretaceous to the Paleogene. During that period there are about 20 million years where there are no coral reefs and about 8 million or so where there are basically no coral fossils. Their diversity plummeted during that period and it now appears that the only species that survived were those that could do so without calcifying. It was those species that later re-radiated into the diversity of modern reef building corals. Corals very narrowly escaped extinction, but the other group of reef-builders at the time, rudist bivalves, did go completely extinct.
    0 0
  7. @56 Mike G. Thanks for your correction! I probably should have mentioned that I could not understand the word preceding Actinia even after a multiple times listening to that section. I reckoned that Actinia would be the group name. But aparently Actinia and Scleractinia are different branches. Also iirc it was Wikipedia that said Actinia were sponges, but you are right, looking that up again leads to sea anemones. Apologies for the confusion I caused, I'll try to be more careful next time.
    0 0
  8. KR @47 -- thanks. Somehow I imagined it would be more than that.
    0 0

Prev  1  2  

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

The Consensus Project Website


(free to republish)

© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us